Im new here, seeking some advice.

[Sam3d]

Hello all, please allow me to quickly introduce myself,

At 39 I just discovered that I have a passion for photography, however, never in my life had I been interested, this mean that I am completely starting form zero.

I have been reading and watching vids a lot and I'm starting to comprehend the exposure triangle, I got me a new camera, Nikon Coolpix p900, which I know it could and could not be the right camera for me, but I couldn't resist the superzoom. In any case, Ive beet taking pictures in different modes, but trying to stick to Manual mode as that's what I've read.

I guess the my main question for now would be, how can the advanced guys see such subtle differences from one picture to the other? is that a skill that developes with time?

here are some of the first pix Ive taken with my camera, any constructive criticism would be very much appreciated.

thanks

Sam

 

[Designer]

I guess the my main question for now would be, how can the advanced guys see such subtle differences from one picture to the other? is that a skill that developes with time?

Hello and welcome! I don't understand your question. If you are asking what differentiates a good photograph from one that is not good, even though the two are very similar looking? Is that correct?

If so, my answer is; yes, it takes some experience to pick out subtle differences, and make a choice between two very similar photos. You can educate yourself in art and composition by reading and study, and practice doing that yourself.

 

[Sam3d]

Thank you Designer,

Can you also tell me what are some issues with the pictures I posted?

 

[dasmith232]

Some of the early differences between a snapshot and a "better" picture starts with backgrounds and lighting. In the first picture, there are some distracting background elements. Positioning yourself to avoid those would be helpful. In the second picture, the background is really the strong light and shadows in the background. Look for even lighting and distraction free backgrounds.

Some more elements are related to focus (and out-of-focus). A phrase that I use is: what's in focus is part of the visual story, what's not in focus is not part of the story. In the first picture, the dog in front is in focus, but the other dog isn't. And ironically, the dog that *is* in focus is looking away (no eye contact) and the out-of-focus dog is looking at the camera. In terms of visual weight and engaging the viewer, eye contact is often a key consideration. So, one dog is in focus the other dog has eye contact. The picture is "almost there" on either point, but not quite complete.

That problem of one dog in focus and the other one not is called "depth of field" or how deep into the picture the focus runs. The details of your camera settings are usually embedded in the picture, but in these pictures above those details have been stripped out. If you want to take more control over things like focus (and its depth), then you'll want to explore the different modes. (Hint: in this case, you'd probably want to explore the "A" mode.)

There are many sites that can teach about photography. Cambridge In Color is one such site, which I like and others here have referenced. The link is: Digital Photography Tutorials

Another site is from Canon (but applies equally to Nikon and others) is: Play

So check out those sites, keep shooting, watch the background, watch your lighting and seek to capture the eyes.

This will stimulate more questions and this is a great place to come back and ask.

 

[Ysarex]

Hello all, please allow me to quickly introduce myself,

At 39 I just discovered that I have a passion for photography, however, never in my life had I been interested, this mean that I am completely starting form zero.

I have been reading and watching vids a lot and I'm starting to comprehend the exposure triangle, I got me a new camera, Nikon Coolpix p900, which I know it could and could not be the right camera for me, but I couldn't resist the superzoom. In any case, Ive beet taking pictures in different modes, but trying to stick to Manual mode as that's what I've read.

I guess the my main question for now would be, how can the advanced guys see such subtle differences from one picture to the other? is that a skill that developes with time?

here are some of the first pix Ive taken with my camera, any constructive criticism would be very much appreciated.

thanks

Sam

Yep, lots of practice.

Your photos have technical problems. Here's the fundamental key: Amateurs look through their cameras and see the subject they're photographing; photographers see how the subject is lit -- see the light. When you took the two photos posted here you saw your pets. It's ok to do that but it's not enough. If you're like most beginners you never came to a conscious assessment of the lighting condition. You must consciously think about and decide what you're going to do with the lighting. Consider the 2nd photo. You're subject is forward in the shade and you have bright sunlight on the background -- that's a mistake and that lighting error resulted in a poor photo -- the dog is too dark and the background is distractingly nuked. You can only avoid a bad lighting condition like that if you see it first -- see the light.

Change your flag to "Photos OK to edit" and I'll show you some changes to your first photo that will help.

In the first photo you also have some lighting problems. The diffuse highlights on the dog's fur are clipped and the color is off.

Some concerns about where you're getting your information: Before you watch another youtube video about photography consider that youtube is the single largest repository of false information ever complied in human history. So far you've encountered the "exposure triangle" and the nonsense about shooting in manual mode. Odds are you're paying attention to rubbish from people who don't know what they're talking about. There are some real problems with the "exposure triangle" as a model and it's going to confuse you if it hasn't already. Here's a good definition of exposure: "In photography, exposure is the amount of light per unit area (the image plane illuminance times the exposure time) reaching a photographic film or electronic image sensor, as determined by shutter speed, lens aperture and scene luminance." wikipedia The "exposure triangle" you've learned sets up the three points of a triangle as shutter speed, f/stop, and ISO. Read that definition I just posted and find ISO.

I've been doing this for 40 years. I rarely use my camera in full manual mode.

Joe

 

[jcdeboever]

Those point & shoot superzooms work well in Program Auto for most things. Just because you can shoot in manual doesn't necessarily mean that is the best mode to shoot in. Practice with P mode and use your EC setting to tame the highlights when shooting outdoors. Play around with that EC, and also get to know the ISO limits of your camera. On mine, 800 is about as high as I want to go to control noise in low light. Tripods and remotes are very helpful with these superzooms as well. When I have mine on a tripod in low light, is where I use manual mode because I can put the camera at the base ISO (100) and use slower shutter speeds (non moving objects of course).

 

[Sam3d]

Some of the early differences between a snapshot and a "better" picture starts with backgrounds and lighting. In the first picture, there are some distracting background elements. Positioning yourself to avoid those would be helpful. In the second picture, the background is really the strong light and shadows in the background. Look for even lighting and distraction free backgrounds.

Some more elements are related to focus (and out-of-focus). A phrase that I use is: what's in focus is part of the visual story, what's not in focus is not part of the story. In the first picture, the dog in front is in focus, but the other dog isn't. And ironically, the dog that *is* in focus is looking away (no eye contact) and the out-of-focus dog is looking at the camera. In terms of visual weight and engaging the viewer, eye contact is often a key consideration. So, one dog is in focus the other dog has eye contact. The picture is "almost there" on either point, but not quite complete.

That problem of one dog in focus and the other one not is called "depth of field" or how deep into the picture the focus runs. The details of your camera settings are usually embedded in the picture, but in these pictures above those details have been stripped out. If you want to take more control over things like focus (and its depth), then you'll want to explore the different modes. (Hint: in this case, you'd probably want to explore the "A" mode.)

There are many sites that can teach about photography. Cambridge In Color is one such site, which I like and others here have referenced. The link is: Digital Photography Tutorials

Another site is from Canon (but applies equally to Nikon and others) is: Play

So check out those sites, keep shooting, watch the background, watch your lighting and seek to capture the eyes.

This will stimulate more questions and this is a great place to come back and ask.

HI Dave, thank you for the advice, this surely helps a lot! I changed my settings to "OK to Edit Photos." also I have bookmarked the Cambridgeincolour.com site, looks great and I will be studying it.

 

[Sam3d]

Hello all, please allow me to quickly introduce myself,

At 39 I just discovered that I have a passion for photography, however, never in my life had I been interested, this mean that I am completely starting form zero.

I have been reading and watching vids a lot and I'm starting to comprehend the exposure triangle, I got me a new camera, Nikon Coolpix p900, which I know it could and could not be the right camera for me, but I couldn't resist the superzoom. In any case, Ive beet taking pictures in different modes, but trying to stick to Manual mode as that's what I've read.

I guess the my main question for now would be, how can the advanced guys see such subtle differences from one picture to the other? is that a skill that developes with time?

here are some of the first pix Ive taken with my camera, any constructive criticism would be very much appreciated.

thanks

Sam

Yep, lots of practice.

Your photos have technical problems. Here's the fundamental key: Amateurs look through their cameras and see the subject they're photographing; photographers see how the subject is lit -- see the light. When you took the two photos posted here you saw your pets. It's ok to do that but it's not enough. If you're like most beginners you never came to a conscious assessment of the lighting condition. You must consciously think about and decide what you're going to do with the lighting. Consider the 2nd photo. You're subject is forward in the shade and you have bright sunlight on the background -- that's a mistake and that lighting error resulted in a poor photo -- the dog is too dark and the background is distractingly nuked. You can only avoid a bad lighting condition like that if you see it first -- see the light.

Change your flag to "Photos OK to edit" and I'll show you some changes to your first photo that will help.

In the first photo you also have some lighting problems. The diffuse highlights on the dog's fur are clipped and the color is off.

Some concerns about where you're getting your information: Before you watch another youtube video about photography consider that youtube is the single largest repository of false information ever complied in human history. So far you've encountered the "exposure triangle" and the nonsense about shooting in manual mode. Odds are you're paying attention to rubbish from people who don't know what they're talking about. There are some real problems with the "exposure triangle" as a model and it's going to confuse you if it hasn't already. Here's a good definition of exposure: "In photography, exposure is the amount of light per unit area (the image plane illuminance times the exposure time) reaching a photographic film or electronic image sensor, as determined by shutter speed, lens aperture and scene luminance." wikipedia The "exposure triangle" you've learned sets up the three points of a triangle as shutter speed, f/stop, and ISO. Read that definition I just posted and find ISO.

I've been doing this for 40 years. I rarely use my camera in full manual mode.

Joe

Hi Joe,

Really good advise! I really appreciate it!

about the exposure triangle, it's very interesting to hear that it's not that accurate .. I do hear a lot on youtube that I should use the camera in Manual, but I did notice that it defeats the purpose to a certain degree, the camera has the ability to take great pictures using the different preset modes, however I do get the point that its about learning the fundamentals.

I will definitely look into the Wikipedia reference regarding exposure... things were just starting to click in my head about the Exposure triangle LOL! I guess it's back to square one!

 

[Sam3d]

Those point & shoot superzooms work well in Program Auto for most things. Just because you can shoot in manual doesn't necessarily mean that is the best mode to shoot in. Practice with P mode and use your EC setting to tame the highlights when shooting outdoors. Play around with that EC, and also get to know the ISO limits of your camera. On mine, 800 is about as high as I want to go to control noise in low light. Tripods and remotes are very helpful with these superzooms as well. When I have mine on a tripod in low light, is where I use manual mode because I can put the camera at the base ISO (100) and use slower shutter speeds (non moving objects of course).

I do have a small and a large tripod, good to hear from you guys that it's not a sin to use the the other modes on my camera

thank you Jcdebover!

 

[dasmith232]

Regarding the exposure triangle, I think the idea is that it can be a confusing place to start. However, it is not inaccurate and Joe didn't say inaccurate. (I'm sure he could elaborate on that.) That triangle is definitely accurate and has been a foundation of exposure for ages. (For old-timers, I'm leaving film-based reciprocity failure out of this for now.)

And yes, the Internet is the overwhelmingly largest collection of inaccurate information, but it's also the largest collection of information period. It's simple math that the largest collection will also (proportionally) be the largest collection of inaccurate information, as well as the largest collection of accurate information. The problem is sorting out one from the other. After all, even this discussion here is on the Internet. At some point, something on the Internet has to be accurate. But that gets into all kinds of existential questions.

Anyway, there are a couple of reasons that the whole exposure vs. exposure triangle vs. exposure value vs. exposure compensation gets confusing. One, the exposure (and more properly, Exposure Value) is the amount of light getting through "the system" (shutter, aperture) to the medium regardless of the medium. But the final exposure on film or the sensor does need to consider the sensitivity of that medium. So in a theoretical sense, ISO is irrelevant (for EV). In a practical sense, we still need to consider it.

Two, the exposure triangle can be confusing because it's actually four elements that determine exposure (not three, as a triangle would imply). The fourth element is light. As you use your camera and make adjustments to shutter, aperture or ISO speed, you'll see the camera make adjustments to the other settings or with the in-camera meter. This is your evidence that the exposure triangle works.

I've also been photographing seriously (and professionally) for a very long time, and happen to use Manual quite a bit. In fact, I use it quite a bit. For example, when using studio flash, it's essential to control the exposure manually because the flash (and I'm talking about multiple, large flash units) is the fourth variable that the camera wasn't aware of in the moment before releasing the shutter.

But using the other modes is perfectly fine. There are many world class photographers that proudly exclaim that they use the other modes. For example, Joe McNally uses aperture priority mode 90+% of the time. He describes this in his book, "The Hot Shoe Diaries".

If it weren't okay to use other modes, you simply wouldn't see them available on professional-level bodies. Similarly, this is why you don't see the various icons (like portrait, sports, landscape, etc) on such bodies.

 

[Ysarex]

Hello all, please allow me to quickly introduce myself,

At 39 I just discovered that I have a passion for photography, however, never in my life had I been interested, this mean that I am completely starting form zero.

I have been reading and watching vids a lot and I'm starting to comprehend the exposure triangle, I got me a new camera, Nikon Coolpix p900, which I know it could and could not be the right camera for me, but I couldn't resist the superzoom. In any case, Ive beet taking pictures in different modes, but trying to stick to Manual mode as that's what I've read.

I guess the my main question for now would be, how can the advanced guys see such subtle differences from one picture to the other? is that a skill that developes with time?

here are some of the first pix Ive taken with my camera, any constructive criticism would be very much appreciated.

thanks

Sam

Yep, lots of practice.

Your photos have technical problems. Here's the fundamental key: Amateurs look through their cameras and see the subject they're photographing; photographers see how the subject is lit -- see the light. When you took the two photos posted here you saw your pets. It's ok to do that but it's not enough. If you're like most beginners you never came to a conscious assessment of the lighting condition. You must consciously think about and decide what you're going to do with the lighting. Consider the 2nd photo. You're subject is forward in the shade and you have bright sunlight on the background -- that's a mistake and that lighting error resulted in a poor photo -- the dog is too dark and the background is distractingly nuked. You can only avoid a bad lighting condition like that if you see it first -- see the light.

Change your flag to "Photos OK to edit" and I'll show you some changes to your first photo that will help.

In the first photo you also have some lighting problems. The diffuse highlights on the dog's fur are clipped and the color is off.

Some concerns about where you're getting your information: Before you watch another youtube video about photography consider that youtube is the single largest repository of false information ever complied in human history. So far you've encountered the "exposure triangle" and the nonsense about shooting in manual mode. Odds are you're paying attention to rubbish from people who don't know what they're talking about. There are some real problems with the "exposure triangle" as a model and it's going to confuse you if it hasn't already. Here's a good definition of exposure: "In photography, exposure is the amount of light per unit area (the image plane illuminance times the exposure time) reaching a photographic film or electronic image sensor, as determined by shutter speed, lens aperture and scene luminance." wikipedia The "exposure triangle" you've learned sets up the three points of a triangle as shutter speed, f/stop, and ISO. Read that definition I just posted and find ISO.

I've been doing this for 40 years. I rarely use my camera in full manual mode.

Joe

Hi Joe,

Really good advise! I really appreciate it!

about the exposure triangle, it's very interesting to hear that it's not that accurate .. I do hear a lot on youtube that I should use the camera in Manual, but I did notice that it defeats the purpose to a certain degree, the camera has the ability to take great pictures using the different preset modes, however I do get the point that its about learning the fundamentals.

I will definitely look into the Wikipedia reference regarding exposure... things were just starting to click in my head about the Exposure triangle LOL! I guess it's back to square one!

I see you altered your edit tag -- good. Your camera is probably set to auto white balance. You can learn to control WB (see manual) and get the color more accurate. In auto WB the camera is making an educated guess. In your first photo that educated guess placed a slight magenta/blue color cast on the photo.

In this photo you had small patches of bright sunlight I assume coming through a window. They blew out in the photo. We use the term clipped highligths; in other words the detail and color in those highlights that should be there has been clipped off. On the background dog it's a pretty large and distracting spot. This is about seeing the lighting and consciously evaluating it before taking the photo. Want to get you to the point where you would have seen that light condition and recognized the potential problem before clicking the shutter and then intervened to fix it.

The "exposure triangle" does help beginners understand how to control their cameras. My problem with it is that it's a faulty analogy that encourages beginners to draw false conclusions about how their cameras work. As they get more interested those false conclusions can start tripping them up. Often the people who present the "exposure triangle" don't understand themselves how the cameras really work and go right ahead and present those false conclusions as part of their presentation. For example it's common to read that ISO as the third point on the triangle controls noise in the photo -- the more you raise the ISO the noisier the photo gets. That's a misunderstanding of what's really happening. It's technically wrong to causally assign noise to ISO. In fact the action of the ISO circuitry in the more commonly designed cameras reduces noise. The "exposure triangle" sets up what appears to be a three-way balancing act around exposure with each of the three variables independently adjusting, motion rendition, depth of field, and noise. That's not really how it works, and I believe that it's always best to have a clear understanding of how things really work.

Here's something to read: class notes

Joe

 

[dasmith232]

Ah, good point about those who correlate noise to ISO. I agree with what you're saying.

Personally, I loosely associate the ISO speed rating to sensitivity. In a digital sensor, there's actually only one level of sensitivity and everything else is amplification (or attenuation). That's why the association is loose. And that applies when I'm using my DSLR's. But I can't find any circuitry embedded in my 4x5 sheet film. And yet it has an ISO rating. And film is reasonably described as having a certain sensitivity to light.

I find (and especially for those starting out) that recognizing the sensitivity to light as one of the balancing factors is helpful (and entirely adequate) in determining proper exposure.

Photography is somewhat unique in its ability to captivate both left-brained and right-brained folks. As soon as we go much further than describing ISO as a sensitivity value, half the audience is disinterested.

 

[Sam3d]

Hello all, please allow me to quickly introduce myself,

At 39 I just discovered that I have a passion for photography, however, never in my life had I been interested, this mean that I am completely starting form zero.

I have been reading and watching vids a lot and I'm starting to comprehend the exposure triangle, I got me a new camera, Nikon Coolpix p900, which I know it could and could not be the right camera for me, but I couldn't resist the superzoom. In any case, Ive beet taking pictures in different modes, but trying to stick to Manual mode as that's what I've read.

I guess the my main question for now would be, how can the advanced guys see such subtle differences from one picture to the other? is that a skill that developes with time?

here are some of the first pix Ive taken with my camera, any constructive criticism would be very much appreciated.

thanks

Sam

Yep, lots of practice.

Your photos have technical problems. Here's the fundamental key: Amateurs look through their cameras and see the subject they're photographing; photographers see how the subject is lit -- see the light. When you took the two photos posted here you saw your pets. It's ok to do that but it's not enough. If you're like most beginners you never came to a conscious assessment of the lighting condition. You must consciously think about and decide what you're going to do with the lighting. Consider the 2nd photo. You're subject is forward in the shade and you have bright sunlight on the background -- that's a mistake and that lighting error resulted in a poor photo -- the dog is too dark and the background is distractingly nuked. You can only avoid a bad lighting condition like that if you see it first -- see the light.

Change your flag to "Photos OK to edit" and I'll show you some changes to your first photo that will help.

In the first photo you also have some lighting problems. The diffuse highlights on the dog's fur are clipped and the color is off.

Some concerns about where you're getting your information: Before you watch another youtube video about photography consider that youtube is the single largest repository of false information ever complied in human history. So far you've encountered the "exposure triangle" and the nonsense about shooting in manual mode. Odds are you're paying attention to rubbish from people who don't know what they're talking about. There are some real problems with the "exposure triangle" as a model and it's going to confuse you if it hasn't already. Here's a good definition of exposure: "In photography, exposure is the amount of light per unit area (the image plane illuminance times the exposure time) reaching a photographic film or electronic image sensor, as determined by shutter speed, lens aperture and scene luminance." wikipedia The "exposure triangle" you've learned sets up the three points of a triangle as shutter speed, f/stop, and ISO. Read that definition I just posted and find ISO.

I've been doing this for 40 years. I rarely use my camera in full manual mode.

Joe

Hi Joe,

Really good advise! I really appreciate it!

about the exposure triangle, it's very interesting to hear that it's not that accurate .. I do hear a lot on youtube that I should use the camera in Manual, but I did notice that it defeats the purpose to a certain degree, the camera has the ability to take great pictures using the different preset modes, however I do get the point that its about learning the fundamentals.

I will definitely look into the Wikipedia reference regarding exposure... things were just starting to click in my head about the Exposure triangle LOL! I guess it's back to square one!

View attachment 135239

I see you altered your edit tag -- good. Your camera is probably set to auto white balance. You can learn to control WB (see manual) and get the color more accurate. In auto WB the camera is making an educated guess. In your first photo that educated guess placed a slight magenta/blue color cast on the photo.

In this photo you had small patches of bright sunlight I assume coming through a window. They blew out in the photo. We use the term clipped highligths; in other words the detail and color in those highlights that should be there has been clipped off. On the background dog it's a pretty large and distracting spot. This is about seeing the lighting and consciously evaluating it before taking the photo. Want to get you to the point where you would have seen that light condition and recognized the potential problem before clicking the shutter and then intervened to fix it.

The "exposure triangle" does help beginners understand how to control their cameras. My problem with it is that it's a faulty analogy that encourages beginners to draw false conclusions about how their cameras work. As they get more interested those false conclusions can start tripping them up. Often the people who present the "exposure triangle" don't understand themselves how the cameras really work and go right ahead and present those false conclusions as part of their presentation. For example it's common to read that ISO as the third point on the triangle controls noise in the photo -- the more you raise the ISO the noisier the photo gets. That's a misunderstanding of what's really happening. It's technically wrong to causally assign noise to ISO. In fact the action of the ISO circuitry in the more commonly designed cameras reduces noise. The "exposure triangle" sets up what appears to be a three-way balancing act around exposure with each of the three variables independently adjusting, motion rendition, depth of field, and noise. That's not really how it works, and I believe that it's always best to have a clear understanding of how things really work.

Here's something to read: class notes

Joe

fascinating stuff! I just read chapter 1 and loving it! thanks Joe!

 

[Ysarex]

Regarding the exposure triangle, I think the idea is that it can be a confusing place to start. However, it is not inaccurate and Joe didn't say inaccurate. (I'm sure he could elaborate on that.) That triangle is definitely accurate and has been a foundation of exposure for ages. (For old-timers, I'm leaving film-based reciprocity failure out of this for now.)

I'll be happy to say it now then -- the exposure triangle is a faulty analogy. It certainly has not been a foundation of exposure for ages. It is in fact a recent construction attributed to this guy:

Bryan Peterson.

Go back 20 years and search the index of all photography textbooks and you'll find no mention of the "exposure triangle." It has no place in any foundation understanding of photography.

And yes, the Internet is the overwhelmingly largest collection of inaccurate information, but it's also the largest collection of information period. It's simple math that the largest collection will also (proportionally) be the largest collection of inaccurate information, as well as the largest collection of accurate information. The problem is sorting out one from the other. After all, even this discussion here is on the Internet. At some point, something on the Internet has to be accurate. But that gets into all kinds of existential questions.

Anyway, there are a couple of reasons that the whole exposure vs. exposure triangle vs. exposure value vs. exposure compensation gets confusing. One, the exposure (and more properly, Exposure Value) is the amount of light getting through "the system" (shutter, aperture) to the medium regardless of the medium. But the final exposure on film or the sensor does need to consider the sensitivity of that medium. So in a theoretical sense, ISO is irrelevant (for EV). In a practical sense, we still need to consider it.

Yep, there's a lot of confusion -- basically it boils down to what people are trying to say when they use the word "exposure." For most people using the term "exposure" they really want to be saying correct exposure or something similar like pleasing exposure, or good exposure. But it's not called the "good exposure triangle." In all fairness that is implied -- but it's another layer of confusion.

Two, the exposure triangle can be confusing because it's actually four elements that determine exposure (not three, as a triangle would imply).

Exposure is the quantity of light that reaches the film/sensor. There are three factors that control how much light reaches the film/sensor:
1. The intensity of the light source.
2. Time of exposure (shutter).
3. Attenuation through the lens (f/stop).

That has long been the foundation definition of exposure. Again the wikipedia definition I referenced earlier is correct: "In photography, exposure is the amount of light per unit area (the image plane illuminance times the exposure time) reaching a photographic film or electronic image sensor, as determined by shutter speed, lens aperture and scene luminance."

Note that the wiki definition identifies the same three determinant factors that I did;
1. scene luminance
2. shutter speed
3. lens aperture

The sensitivity of the film/sensor does play a critical role in arriving at an acceptable photograph -- a "good exposure" if you like. I think the root of all the confusion is centered around ISO -- what it is and what it does. Pre-digital, film ISO was a constant value assigned to the film. When we made the transition to digital we fundamentally changed ISO (digital sensors don't have an assigned ISO value). A lot of confusion has ensued in the attempts to handle the change and smooth the transition. What we need is a way to explain and understand the role of ISO in a way that doesn't confuse what's actually going on or confuse why we make the choices we make. I agree that's tricky and so results in attempts at simplification that generate weak analogies that then cause misunderstandings.

Joe

The fourth element is light. As you use your camera and make adjustments to shutter, aperture or ISO speed, you'll see the camera make adjustments to the other settings or with the in-camera meter. This is your evidence that the exposure triangle works.

I've also been photographing seriously (and professionally) for a very long time, and happen to use Manual quite a bit. In fact, I use it quite a bit. For example, when using studio flash, it's essential to control the exposure manually because the flash (and I'm talking about multiple, large flash units) is the fourth variable that the camera wasn't aware of in the moment before releasing the shutter.

But using the other modes is perfectly fine. There are many world class photographers that proudly exclaim that they use the other modes. For example, Joe McNally uses aperture priority mode 90+% of the time. He describes this in his book, "The Hot Shoe Diaries".

If it weren't okay to use other modes, you simply wouldn't see them available on professional-level bodies. Similarly, this is why you don't see the various icons (like portrait, sports, landscape, etc) on such bodies.

 

[Ysarex]

Hello all, please allow me to quickly introduce myself,

At 39 I just discovered that I have a passion for photography, however, never in my life had I been interested, this mean that I am completely starting form zero.

I have been reading and watching vids a lot and I'm starting to comprehend the exposure triangle, I got me a new camera, Nikon Coolpix p900, which I know it could and could not be the right camera for me, but I couldn't resist the superzoom. In any case, Ive beet taking pictures in different modes, but trying to stick to Manual mode as that's what I've read.

I guess the my main question for now would be, how can the advanced guys see such subtle differences from one picture to the other? is that a skill that developes with time?

here are some of the first pix Ive taken with my camera, any constructive criticism would be very much appreciated.

thanks

Sam

Yep, lots of practice.

Your photos have technical problems. Here's the fundamental key: Amateurs look through their cameras and see the subject they're photographing; photographers see how the subject is lit -- see the light. When you took the two photos posted here you saw your pets. It's ok to do that but it's not enough. If you're like most beginners you never came to a conscious assessment of the lighting condition. You must consciously think about and decide what you're going to do with the lighting. Consider the 2nd photo. You're subject is forward in the shade and you have bright sunlight on the background -- that's a mistake and that lighting error resulted in a poor photo -- the dog is too dark and the background is distractingly nuked. You can only avoid a bad lighting condition like that if you see it first -- see the light.

Change your flag to "Photos OK to edit" and I'll show you some changes to your first photo that will help.

In the first photo you also have some lighting problems. The diffuse highlights on the dog's fur are clipped and the color is off.

Some concerns about where you're getting your information: Before you watch another youtube video about photography consider that youtube is the single largest repository of false information ever complied in human history. So far you've encountered the "exposure triangle" and the nonsense about shooting in manual mode. Odds are you're paying attention to rubbish from people who don't know what they're talking about. There are some real problems with the "exposure triangle" as a model and it's going to confuse you if it hasn't already. Here's a good definition of exposure: "In photography, exposure is the amount of light per unit area (the image plane illuminance times the exposure time) reaching a photographic film or electronic image sensor, as determined by shutter speed, lens aperture and scene luminance." wikipedia The "exposure triangle" you've learned sets up the three points of a triangle as shutter speed, f/stop, and ISO. Read that definition I just posted and find ISO.

I've been doing this for 40 years. I rarely use my camera in full manual mode.

Joe

Hi Joe,

Really good advise! I really appreciate it!

about the exposure triangle, it's very interesting to hear that it's not that accurate .. I do hear a lot on youtube that I should use the camera in Manual, but I did notice that it defeats the purpose to a certain degree, the camera has the ability to take great pictures using the different preset modes, however I do get the point that its about learning the fundamentals.

I will definitely look into the Wikipedia reference regarding exposure... things were just starting to click in my head about the Exposure triangle LOL! I guess it's back to square one!

View attachment 135239

I see you altered your edit tag -- good. Your camera is probably set to auto white balance. You can learn to control WB (see manual) and get the color more accurate. In auto WB the camera is making an educated guess. In your first photo that educated guess placed a slight magenta/blue color cast on the photo.

In this photo you had small patches of bright sunlight I assume coming through a window. They blew out in the photo. We use the term clipped highligths; in other words the detail and color in those highlights that should be there has been clipped off. On the background dog it's a pretty large and distracting spot. This is about seeing the lighting and consciously evaluating it before taking the photo. Want to get you to the point where you would have seen that light condition and recognized the potential problem before clicking the shutter and then intervened to fix it.

The "exposure triangle" does help beginners understand how to control their cameras. My problem with it is that it's a faulty analogy that encourages beginners to draw false conclusions about how their cameras work. As they get more interested those false conclusions can start tripping them up. Often the people who present the "exposure triangle" don't understand themselves how the cameras really work and go right ahead and present those false conclusions as part of their presentation. For example it's common to read that ISO as the third point on the triangle controls noise in the photo -- the more you raise the ISO the noisier the photo gets. That's a misunderstanding of what's really happening. It's technically wrong to causally assign noise to ISO. In fact the action of the ISO circuitry in the more commonly designed cameras reduces noise. The "exposure triangle" sets up what appears to be a three-way balancing act around exposure with each of the three variables independently adjusting, motion rendition, depth of field, and noise. That's not really how it works, and I believe that it's always best to have a clear understanding of how things really work.

Here's something to read: class notes

Joe

fascinating stuff! I just read chapter 1 and loving it! thanks Joe!

You're welcome. I teach photo at the college level and that's an excerpt from some of my class notes.

Joe